tv The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Comedy Central May 16, 2013 9:00am-9:31am PDT
captioning sponsored by comedy central from comedy central's world news headquarters in new york, this is "the daily show" with jon stewart. ( cheers and applause ). >> jon: welcome to "the daily show." my name is jon stewart. we have a very, very, very, very good show for you tonight. our guest tonight former senator olympia snowe is going to be joining us. fun fact. they is married to '90s rap sensation snow.
our top story tonight. hurricane sandy, the continuing tropical [bleep] storm that is rocking the obama administration. yesterday press secretary jay carney, like an intrepid weather channel anchor, stood and let the wind and rain pummel him for our entertainment purposes. >> on the i.r.s., did the president believe that they're being truthful? does he think that the leadership there needs to change? >> part of it is fact. it's not an if anymore. it's fact. >> that's your opinion, all right. >> there have been twice as many prosecutions as all previous administrations combined. >> is there a siege mentality back on the west wing right now. >> absolutely not. jon: siege mentality. why would you say that? is it the vat of boiling oil in the moat?
is that why you say that. the vat of boiling oil. i don't know. who knows. you know what? fair is fair. it is a good week for conservatives. angry rhetoric, a level of upset about the president for once seems somewhat appropriate. >> it cuts to this administration's core credibility. it cuts to its trust. >> it's absolutely appalling. this is disturbing. just shocking to me. unbelievable. this is very bad news for the white house. >> jon: what they just said was... hannity, tucker carlson and ducey are (mumbling). you see, what you've done to the obama administration.
their complaints had some legitimacy. although mr. doocy i can go without knowing what your o-face is. ( applause ) you know, it's been a very tough week for the white house. you know, it wasn't just the intensity of the criticism. it wasn't just the intensity of the criticism of the white house that seemed appropriate but at times the content of the criticism. >> now they're saying that the senior leadership at the i.r.s., i didn't know anything about it on the heels of hillary clinton saying i didn't know anything about those extra requests for security in benghazi libya. who knows something about anything that matters? is there anybody who is minding the shop? >> jon: that's what i was saying yesterday. you know, meg and kelly, we've
had our differences. maybe it's time we do a show together. call it fox and frenemy. beauty and the bris. what? i'm sorry. i'm being told this is going to be called regis and kelly. all right. it has gotten so bad for the administration, some on the right were almost offering more sympathetic rationales for them. >> i think they also have terrible what i call scandal-dar, like radar. if you cut me open, i have so much scandal-dar >> jon: what dana perino was saying is that the white house doesn't seem to realize when something is perceived as corrupt or scandalous in the public's eye. although scandal-dar is not how you would typically phrase that. it's not you can't just add the sufficient ticks-dar to something. it's a more finesse word play.
what makes gay-dar work is gay, rhymes with ray. so, for instance, if you had a weird sixth sense about where churches were, you could say that's prayer-dar. that would work or for some reason you always do "when this month started" that would be may-dar. toupee-dar. that would work. ( cheers and applause ) he's literally... that was just an enormously long walk just to [bleep] on that guy. there was absolutely no point to that bit at all. i'll be completely honest with you. i worked utterly backwards on that bit. the dana perino bit. nothing to that. we just thought what a nice way to get into [bleep] donald trump. that's all that was. that's it. embarrassing. anyway, so this is all bad for
the administration. the question is, how bad? >> this is nixonian. this is a president whose inner nixon is being revealed >> jon: that's it. if these measures from the i.r.s. and justice were taken at the behest of the white house that is nixonian. at best, if you believe the administration only found out about this stuff through news reports, it's still bad. it's just that the president's inner magoo is being revealed. it's magoovian. i remember when president magoo nominated a coat rack for secretary of the treasury. it was comical. until, of course, the devastating depression. but this week i can't nitpick. the flood gates are open. every critic suddenly has credibility. every single one. who wouldn't have the standing to be able to legitimately criticize this president. i can't imagine. >> i can't imagine...
jon: hold on. ( cheers and applause ) aren't you donald rumsfeld? i assume you're about to say something like i can't imagine possibly commenting on something like this, given my dubious relationship with good governance. >> i can't imagine how a person could stand up there when everyone involved knew it was a terrorist attack. the idea that it was somehow related to a you tube video and that that narrative kept being promoted, i suppose it's because it fit their hopes and what they wanted to be the indication. ... what they wantedded to be the case.
>> jon: thank you, donald rumsfeld. i was thinking there was no way to overreach. you believed the obama administration is promoting a narrative, not because it's real but because it fits their hopes and what they want to be the case? you? senior w.m.d. magill cutty, esquire. the guy who wanted to go after saddam hussein on 9/11 while the president was still reading "my pet goat"? you? and somehow managed to make that attack happen even though saddam hussein had nothing to do with 9/11? rumsfeld is german for promoting a narrative because it fits your hopes and what you want to be the case. it is the rare german word that is actually shorter than the thing it is describing. so, no! you alone don't get to come to the victory parade for the
republicans. you're the only guy who doesn't get to weigh in. >> i think it's one of the worst incidents frankly >> jon: did i say one guy? is that he whose name i dare not speak. the one who sets off my cheney-dar. who led our country astray-dar? shot his friend in the fay-dar? has the heart of gray-dar? don't. you. dare. >> i think it's one of the worst incidents that frankly that i can recall in my career. they claimed it was because of a demonstration video so they wouldn't have to admit that it was really all about their competence. they lied. >> jon: you do not get to use the l-word.
in fact, you don't even get to watch the l-word. dick. which i can call you because that's your name. after the the lines you told, you don't get to doubt anyone's credibility. if a baseball breaks your window and your grand kid walks in the door with a baseball bat and tells you that zach and cody from the sweet life did it while they were playing a game with sponge bob, you just have to [bleep] choke that down. now, listen to me. and listen close. all of these scandals could add up to very bad repercussions for the obama administration. many conservative republicans are entitled to their moment of righteousness but guess what? history didn't start friday. and obama administration transgressions don't wipe away yours which are many and grievous. enjoy watching your friends have their fun but tweedal-dick and tweedal-rum don't get to join
olympia snowe. how are you? nice to see you. >> wow. big audience. wow. >> jon: they're a fine, fine group of proud americans. >> great to be here jon: it is nice to be here. a very popular show. >> it is jon: here's the book right here. fighting for common ground. how to get the stalemate out of congress. you know what is so interesting to me? this book is always written by senators after they leave the senate. whenever they leave the senate they always go, you know what those guys should do? >> but i've been trying to tell them that forever. >> jon: why is it so hard to do when you're there? >> well, i do. i talk to my colleagues. what i say in the book is nothing different than what i would say to my colleagues, even talking to the president of the united states. but actually i didn't even intend to write a book when i made my decision not to seek re-election.
but some people suggested it. and to lay it out there onto have it come out at this period of time which is critical to the country because this is the moment in congress where the president and the congress supposedly... >> jon: nothing is going to happen now. with the way things are going now... >> you already know that? jon: you have a better chance of impeachment than background checks right now. let me ask you this. you were there. this is the thing that i can't wrap my head around. in 2009 you guys have a retreat. and you're in the library of congress. and i guess it's in the retreat room. the library of congress. >> the retreat room? not literally >> jon: wherever they have the snacks. >> that's right. jon: wherever they keep the cooking books. there. mitch mcconnell stands up and says we will deny this president bipartisanship. we will not give him that. not we will look for legislation that best serves the american
people. we will deny this man any bipartisanship. does anyone raise their hand and go, that seems petty? what happens there? >> well, as you know, it didn't unfortunately happen on... i mean it did happen on bipartisanship. no one worked on both sides except a few of us. the stimulus was the beginning of that process in 2009. only three of us ended up voting for it. by working with the president. you know, the wheels came off so soon in the administration and with congress. which was stunning and surprising frankly. >> jon: it's surprising when there's a meeting, when they literally sit and go, we will not work together. is that not surprising? that's the opposite of surprising when you go, well, that was our plan. that worked. >> well, you know, on one hand to say it. it's quite another to fulfill it
>> jon: but they did fulfill it. i know. people on both sides say a lot of things but you get past that and you work together. that's what should have happened. that's what didn't happen. that's tragic >> jon: what's the pushback like? >> what? i don't know about the pushback. i'm always pushing back. >> jon: they did not care for you? >> no. literally on the front lines everyday. that's why, you know, i was called a dinosaur and a r.i.n.o. >> jon: these guys get there, you get manchin from west virginia and too maniy from wherever the hell that guy is from. >> pennsylvania jon: they ghettoing and do a bipartisan background check amendment. they say they've got 70 senators lined up. the n.r.a. says they're going to score it. that drops to 54. 54 is still a majority. it gets defeated because of the silliness of the filibuster. >> but let's go back. 90% of the american people supported that initiative,
right? >> jon: yes. okay. and so 10% opposed it. was the 10% louder than the 90%? that's the problem. we've all got to speak up. that's why making sure this... >> jon: you don't people spoke up about background checks? >> no. calling members of congress and making sure they hear from those 90%. >> jon: they don't answer our call. they only answer the n.r.a.'s. ( cheers and applause ) >> and you've got to make sure. that's why i wrote this book. you've got to make sure so that you can reinforce those voices and back them up. you had a rally "restore sanity." >> jon: yeah, that worked. that lasted 15 minutes. >> jon, do it again. would you all call your members of congress? ( cheers and applause )
absolutely. >> jon: representative government that has 90% support for an issue and 70 senators that would do it if not one for lobbying group's objections shouldn't have to read a book and call people to get that done. that's a broken system. ( cheers and applause ) >> i agree with you. jon: we're going to take a commercial break. i also want to talk about the a.r.b. stuff. this is very interesting. you, my fine friend, wrote the a.r.b. legislation. she is one of the people that got accountability review boards in place. it something that turned out to be very helpful. we backbe back [ birds chirping ]
[ inhales, exhales ] [ announcer ] cigarettes are not just dangerous when they're smoked. [ rat squeaking ] they're dangerous long after. cigarette butts are toxic. they release chemicals that poison our water... and harm wildlife. and millions... are polluting our environment. [ sniffing ] [ seagulls squawking ]
( cheers and applause ) welcome back. we're here with senator olympia snowe. before we get into a.r.b., before we get into a.r.b., you wanted to say something about the ability to change. >> that's exactly right. that means all of us, everyone of us, have to weigh in and make sure your voices are heard on capitol hill. and demand bipartisanship and that lawmakers work across the line and support universal background checks. it's up to each of us. you know, the late senator warren ruddman once said politics is too important to be left to the politicians. absolutely. >> jon: let's talk about, this is interesting. there's so much going on now about the a.r.b., about the incident in benghazi. you actually helped write the
legislation in, was it the '80s or the '90s? >> '86 jon: there have been terrible attacks, hundreds of attacks in the '80s. you guys came up with this idea for these review boards. how did that come about? >> it came about as a result of more than 200 attacks on embassies and consulates around the world during the 1980s and specifically, as you know, the horrific event that occurred in beirut, over 283 marines were killed. so as a result we decided to beef up security at our embassies, both physically in the perimeters but also making sure that we had all the security measures in place. and to rebuild >> jon: those a.r.b.s had been effective in creating all this. when you see this a.r.b. that was done on benghazi and having read through it, it's scathing against the state department. >> it is jon: but it also proposes a good number of changes that needed to be made.
it seems like they're not really thinking about those changes right now. they're still... >> you know, the issue and the reason and the genesis of that legislation creating the accountability review board is to make sure people are held accountable because what had happened in the past, it would make these, you know, indiscriminate decisions about security measures and then you had men and women on the front lines who were killed so we wanted to make sure that there was strict accountability for people making those decisions and there have been security measures in place at that post. snop one of the theories was you want to get accountability down the line because the secretary is always going to come out and go, "i am responsible." then it gets papered over. they want to go in to the weeds with it and find out exactly. but how bad are the chain of command and communication issues within these departments? >> obviously bad. i mean because to have benghazi vulnerable and exposed in a
high-threat environment, there were numerous incidents that had already occurred that summer against other foreign interests. in fact, a british convoy was attacked. they closed their posts the very next day >> jon: they even said within the a.r.b. because they trusted this particular diplomat so well, they maybe left him more vulnerable than someone else because of how highly they regarded him. >> absolutely. at the time we were considering intervention in libya. i raised the specter about how we were going to provide security because if we're going to depend on the militias which were unreliable, ill equipped, ill trained which was the case that night at that... >> jon: the blue mountain and february 17. >> it was terrible. there was virtually little perimeter security. they were overrun >> jon: do you have hopes they'll be able to push past the political angles of this and get to the more foundational aspect which is making sure that those types of administrative mistakes never happen again. >> that's what has to happen.
that's why it's so important not to have a process that is viewed or conveyed in anyway as political, that it's all about getting and seeking the truth. bipartisanship should be about seeking the truth. >> jon: i've heard good things about it. >> you have? jon: i've never seen it work. but i've heard good things about it. in my history books. fighting for the common ground. it's on the book shelves now. senator olympia snowe. thank you so much.